Peter Vreman wrote:
Below are the number that i get when i compiled fppkg from r9259. These show
only 3% improvement.
But also small bits help and i'll apply the patches after some cleanups.
Looks like I was too optimistic in my first estimation :) Still, testing
the fppkg project (commandli
> Peter Vreman wrote:
>>
>> I gave the patch a quick try and the speed stays the same for compiling the
>> compiler sources.
>> Can
>> you explain how you did measure the performance gain?
>>
> First, I compiled the compiler using -gl switch in order to have
> procedure names in logs.
> Then I com
Peter Vreman schrieb:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have spent some time to profile the compiler using callgrind, and was
>> able to improve its speed by about 20%. Attached are the changes that I
>> made to the sources.
>
> I gave the patch a quick try and the speed stays the same for compiling the
> compil
Peter Vreman wrote:
I gave the patch a quick try and the speed stays the same for compiling the
compiler sources. Can
you explain how you did measure the performance gain?
First, I compiled the compiler using -gl switch in order to have
procedure names in logs.
Then I compiled a project (it w
Sounds goodl! Was it an overall improvement? What 'benchmark' was '20% faster'
with the patches? Guess it was compiling the compiler?
Regards John
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Sergei Gorelkin
> Sent: 19 November 2007 15:50
>
> Hello,
>
> I have spent some time to profile the compiler using callgrind, and was
> able to improve its speed by about 20%. Attached are the changes that I
> made to the sources.
I gave the patch a quick try and the speed stays the same for compiling the
compiler sources. Can
you explain how y
